MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A comparison of lesion-overlap approaches to quantify corticospinal tract involvement in chronic stroke

2022· article· en· W4224529715 on OpenAlexafffund
Clarissa Pedrini Schuch, Timothy K. Lam, Mindy F. Levin, Steven C. Cramer, Richard H. Swartz, Alexander Thiel, Joyce L. Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience Methods · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationSunnybrook Health Science CentreHeart and Stroke FoundationMcGill UniversityJewish Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsCorticospinal tractStroke (engine)LesionChronic strokePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPyramidal tractsNeuroscienceBiomarkerMedicinePsychologyPathologyMagnetic resonance imagingRehabilitationBiologyRadiologyDiffusion MRI

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Corticospinal tract involvement with a stroke lesion is a biomarker of motor outcome. • Four approaches quantifying corticospinal tract involvement were compared. • All approaches explained 20–30% of variance in chronic stroke motor impairment. • Maximum overlap and percent subsections injured approaches explained most variance.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.401
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.086 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuroscience MethodsSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207